19930412.docx

MINUTES OF DECISION MEETING
April 12, 1993 - 1:30 p.m.
In attendance:
Commissioners Marsha H. Smith, Joe Miller and Ralph Nelson and staff members Mike Gilmore, Scott Woodbury, Brad Purdy, Don Howell, Tonya Clark, Madonna Faunce, Belinda Anderson, Joe Cusick, Gary Richardson, Stephanie Miller, Bev Barker, Keith Hessing and Myrna Walters.  Also in attendance were Walt Sorg of GTE and Jim Wozniak and Ron Lightfoot of U. S. West.
Items from the Published April 12, 1993 Agenda were discussed and acted upon as follows.
1.  Regulated Carrier Division Agenda dated April 12, 1993.
Okayed by all three commissioners.
1A. Don Howell's April 9, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  UP's Request to Close the Twin Falls Agency, Case No. UP-RR-92-4.
Discussed the number of shippers in Twin Falls.
*After discussion, was decided to hold a hearing - tentative date discussed was May 3, 1993.
2.  Brad Purdy's April 5, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  IPC-E-92-25; Applications for Intervenor Funding.
Commissioner Miller, Case Chairman, said he had suggested amounts - ICIP $7,380, CUC - $8,982 and Irrigators $8,638.  Said Commissioners have had preliminary discussions and the approach they have been working on is - start with awarding out of pocket costs of each party.  Those don't look unreasonable.  That uses up $5,000 of the $25,000.  Then in discussing attorney and witness time, CUC and Irrigators amount of time seemed reasonable.  Industrial customers spent twice as much time as anyother party on  legal time. That may have been a reasonable amount of time spent but when you are dealing with fixed amount of money, there is some obligation that overall the amount of time spent is reasonable.  Capped them at 80 hours.  Otherwise the attorney fees seemed reasonable.  With respect to the experts, irrigators spent more than twice the others.  Both CUC and ICIP experts were about the same.  So reduced the Irrigators hours to 104 (half).  Considered making those according to reasonableness.  Then make pro rate adjustments to the numbers.  Was also thinking that some weight should be given to the materiality of the presentations, whether they contributed to our decision in a meaningful way.  Attempted to rank the presentations.  Can touch on one ranking method.  CUC was the most helpful.  Irrigators
-2-
were next and ICIP the third most helpful.  By providing numerical weighting you would come up with those numbers.  Commercial customers were good on rate stability question.  The forecast discussion was useful.  Thought the Irrigators were helpful on load growth question because they confirmed, or gave a different prospective on that and thought that Commissioners accepted of the three parties, the least of the industrial customer recommendations of any of the parties.  That is why he came up with the order of ranking.
Commissioner Smith said her thoughts were initially the same.
Commissioner Nelson said where Commission is getting more intervenors, think this is going to be an issue more and more.  Think it is time to refine how to determine intervenor funding.  This is a way to see their contributions.  This is a lot better than dividing by three.
Commissioner Miller said he thought we were trying to reward worth.  People who provide information otherwise to us, should receive more compensation.  Suggested taking an initial scheme ... need to make a second adjustment for material contribution.  
Commissioner Smith said if you divided it by three, you wouldn't recognize differences.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought it was important to say we had to come up with a method to apportion.
Commissioner Smith said maybe what they paid their attorneys and consultants was correct but we don't have $80,000 to hand out.
**Terri Carlock and Dave Schunke were in attendance at this time.
Commissioner Miller said all we are saying is given the limited amount we have, we have to use some constraints.
Commissioners were asked how it should be recovered?
Mike Gilmore suggested it be in the next general rate case.
**Commissioners so agreed.
3.  Brad Purdy's April 5, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Application of Bar Circle "S" Ranch, Inc. Water Company for Expansion of Certificated Area.
-3-
Commissioner Smith asked if there were any adjoining utilities?
**Remind them that their regulatory fee is due.
Approved the amendment.
4.  Belinda Anderson's April 6, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  GTE(Formerly CONTEL) Tariff No. 93-06 to be Effective 4-25-93 Adding 1+ Presubscription for its Public and Semi-Public Pay Phones.
Commissioner Nelson moved approval.
Other Commissioners concurred.
5.  Joe Cusick's April 9, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Homedale & Wilder Petition for Relief to Caldwell & Nampa (Case No. GNR-T-93-7).
Commissioner Nelson said we probably need to open a case since there are 736 signatures.  
Discussed the current situation.
**Decided to investigate.
**Jim Long was in attendance at this time.
6.  Lori Mann's April 8, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Irrigation Conservation Filing; Case No. IPC-E-93-2.
Commissioner Nelson asked about the five audits a year?
Lori Mann said she didn't think they wanted a few customers or one big farmer using up all the resources available to have these audits done.  Don't know if 5 was a reasonable number.  Said Bill Eastlake didn't have a problem with the number.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't really see a problem with it but just was wondering.  In order to maintain some budget control, five is probably a good number.  Could always make a change later.
Commissioner Miller said he assumed the order could establish 5 as benchmark and encourage company to work out special circumstances.  Seemed like these could be worked out.  (They are business transactions).
**Approve the program with language that the company can work with customers with special circumstances.  Commission won't get into the particulars then.
-4-
Commissioner Miller asked if there was any reply comments to Water Resources' comments on speed drive.
There were none.
Commissioner Miller said he was glad to see Water Resources make comments.  After reading their comments, don't have strong feelings about case by case basis or "speed drives".
Commissioner Nelson asked - wouldn't that be a part of putting on the program?
Lori Mann suggested putting in something about follow up comments.  Suggested wording.
Mike Gilmore asked if that decision should be made at the Commission level or the company level?
**Randy Lobb was in attendance at this time.  Randy spoke to variable speed drives.  They have quite a narrow range of application because they are so costly, at least they were in the past.  It certainly shouldn't be limited to new installations.  Existing ones and probably large systems are the most applicable.  It takes a special kind of irrigation system to use those.  So there is not much application for them.
Commissioner Miller asked - it is going to be a case by case basis?
Randy Lobb said his problem is with the standard.  What do they consider bad?  What do they consider good, what is the difference?  What do they estimate they will save?  Staff comments kind of point that out.  In terms of new construction, is somewhat similar.  If you don't have the program, you don't know what the farmers are going to do if they don't have a program like this.
Commissioner Miller said - ask them to pay special attention to cost effectiveness of variable speed adjustments.
Commissioner Smith suggested asking them to report in a year.
Commissioner Miller said presumably staff analysis took care of other concerns.
-5-
7.  Scott Woodbury's April 8, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. IPC-E-92-31 - Rosebud-Mountain Home Project.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought there were some interesting issues raised here on projects of more than 10 megawatts.  Seemed to him when we get into facility of this size, issues of dispatchability, etc., are viable questions.
Scott Woodbury said he mis-spoke a little on Page 2 where he indicated company was basing rates on a combined cycle.  In talking to Ferree this morning, it is a peaking facility.  We are also moving off that.
Commissioner Nelson said he thought there were some issues raised on this large a facility.  Think the Commission assumed in setting avoided costs that the summer facilities could come on line without significant change to resource needs.
Commissioner Smith asked if a prehearing should be held?
Commissioner Nelson said he didn't think Commission had defined the issues for either party.
Commissioner Miller said it is difficult because the current rule or policy is that for above 10 mw you use the avoided cost rates as generated by our existing methodology as starting point and start from there depending on the project.  So, the approach to this case might be different depending on if you think there is a current rule or there isn't.  If there is not, then this is what the rule is.  If there isn't a current rule, should these parties be required to negotiate under that rule or change the rule?  If so, how do they go about changing the rule?  Don't know what the right answers are to those questions.
Scott Woodbury said he agreed as to Commission language for projects over 10 mws.  Start with 10 mw, then look at unique circumstances.  If that is the case, Commission would envision that the same methodology would apply and the company would not be changing that methodology or a surrogate.
Mike Gilmore said in the Utah case, size changed the calculation.  UP&L came in and proposed a rate that was based on what it should be because of the size and it was changing the load resource range.
Commissioner Miller said it may well be that Idaho Power could make a case for adjustments.  Could have prehearing conference and then have better feel for the case, rather
-6-
than relying on letters, maybe if we just tried to find out through counsel representatives how to do it, could have better feel for what we are doing here.  Could find out if we are dealing with question of better methodology or are we using different methodology.
Scott Woodbury asked - do we want to try to identify issues before the hearing?  
Commissioner Nelson said he thought they should come ready to argue why or why not something should be an issue.
**Prehearing.
8.  Scott Woodbury's April 8, 1993 Decision Memorandum  re:  Case No. INT-G-92-2.
Scott Woodbury said this is a follow up to the last tracker and company is getting ready to file a new tracker.  
Commissioner Smith mention ed WACOG should be spelled out.
Approved the proposed order attached to the decision memorandum.
9.  Mike Gilmore's April 9, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Amendment of Telephone Customer Relations rules with Regard to Billing Disputes--Case No. 31.D-R-92-4.
Commissioner Miller said he thought keeping this separate at this time was a good idea.
Stephanie Miller asked what was next?
Mike Gilmore said his inclination would be to close this case.
Commissioner Miller suggested just getting reply comments on the record and scheduling an oral presentation.
Gary Richardson asked about the term "oral presentation"?
Mike Gilmore explained the term.  
Was decided to have oral presentation and go from there.
**Get reply comments.
-7-
10. Mike Gilmore's April 9, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. 31-1102-9301--Readoption and Reformatting of Information Rules for Telephone Companies.
Okayed as presented.
11. Mike Gilmore's April 9, 1993 Decision Memorandum re:  Case No. 31-4101-9301--Readoption and Reformatting of Customer Relations Rules for Telephone Companies.
Commissioner Smith questioned 011.  Since we don't know what we are going to do on electric, wonder if we should put it out the way it is?
Mike Gilmore said his concern is most companies have more restrictive language.
Commissioner Smith suggested using Idaho Power wording.
Mike Gilmore suggested saying, if the terms in these rules are inconsistent, say the rules take precedent.
Commissioner Miller asked if this was in the current rules?
Mike Gilmore said no.
Commissioner Smith said these rules are the rules unless the Commission affirmatively tells you you can do something else.
Commissioner Miller suggested addressing this question the next time we do substantive changes to the rules.  Suggested waiting on this change.  Said his thought is someone who received this order, if they thought it was strictly reformatting it would be read one way but if you thought you had to read through it carefully, you would treat it differently.  Would like to rely on our advertising that it is really readoption and reformatting.
Bev Barker said we were just looking for a statement that is already in effect.
Commissioner Smith suggested wording drawing attention to it.
Commissioner Miller asked if there was any other place where this happens?
Page 22 - thought the order should point that out too.
-8-
Page 25 - 05 - change permanent to payment.
Page 26 - f.  Should be obligation.
Meeting adjourned.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this 18th day of May, 1993.
Myrna J. Walters
Commission Secretary
0153M